In mid-2011, the Technology Strategy
Board started an integrated programme
of work focused on the Internet of Things
(IoT), which included strategic investment
and the establishment of a Special Interest
Group aimed at building and engaging a
UK community of innovators and researchers
in the IoT. As the portfolio of activities with
businesses, academics and other stakeholders
progressed, it became apparent to us that
the community had a keen interest in taking
a more concerted and deeper look at the
fundamental research issues in the IoT
and that a more interdisciplinary approach
was needed.
Responding to this level of interest, the
Technology Strategy Board joined forces
with the Arts and Humanities Research
Council, the Economic and Social Research
Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council and the Research Councils
UK Digital Economy Programme and agreed
to collaborate on an interdisciplinary R&D
roadmapping activity, arguably the first of
its kind in the UK.
The activity, led by Professors Rahim Tafazolli,
Hamid Aghvami, Rachel Cooper, William
Dutton and Dr Colin Upstill brought together
insight from a wide group of leaders and
culminated in a two-day ‘meeting of minds’
in Loughborough on 11 and 12 July 2012.
This report summarises the outcomes of the
activity and makes important wide-ranging
recommendations.
Dr Maurizio Pilu
Technology Strategy Board

Principal Investigator:
Professor Rahim Tafazolli, Director of the Centre
for Communication Systems Research, University of Surrey
Co-investigators:
Professor Hamid Aghvami, Professor Rachel Cooper,
Professor William Dutton and Dr Colin Upstill
This work was supported by the Technology Strategy Board,
the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Economic and
Social Research Council and the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council, and coordinated by the Internet
of Things Special Interest Group.
Contents
Introduction 1
The methodology 3
Key recommendations 5
Develop a coordinated national research
and innovation programme 5
Fund and sustain open experimental
research spaces 5
Fund the development and deployment
of open experimental IoT platforms 6
Fund interdisciplinary research 6
Priority research areas 7
Governance 8
Business 9
People 10
Trust 11
Data 12
Devices and connectivity 13
Acknowledgements 15
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things ii
Introduction
This report summarises a unique collaborative effort
between the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), the Arts
and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the Economic
and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the
UK Internet of Things Special Interest Group focused
on developing an interdisciplinary understanding of the
priorities for research and innovation in the IoT.
– T  his section outlines the development of the IoT,
emphasising the range of research challenges and
issues that need to be addressed.
– ‘The methodology’ describes the distinctive
interdisciplinary approach to the roadmapping exercise.
– ‘Key recommendations’ contains key high-level,
far-reaching recommendations for the Research
Councils and the Technology Strategy Board.
– ‘Priority research areas’ summarises the key priority
areas for research, grouped into six cross-cutting themes,
highlighting important research challenges that need to
be addressed.
The Internet of Things (IoT) is one of the terms widely used for the
set of technologies, systems and methodologies that underpins
the emerging new wave of internet-enabled applications based on
physical objects and the environment seamlessly integrating into
the information network.
Some research estimates that the number of connected objects
will reach 50 billion as early as 2020. The potential added value
of services using the IoT is likely to reach hundreds of billions of
pounds a year, with new business models, applications and services
spanning all sectors of the economy (such as smart cities, intelligent
transport, health monitoring and environmental control, to name but
a few).
Today...
... the IoT landscape is already very complex and is typical of an
emerging technology area. It is characterised by a large number of
proprietary, sector-specific approaches, lack of interoperability and
unclear business propositions in all but a few application areas.
In the next five to ten years...
“The scale of the IoT could dwarf that
… there will be wider-scale commercial deployments at a domain-
specific level, with applications spanning several sectors. New
business propositions for investing in IoT applications will begin
to emerge, while greater user involvement together with surer
handling of trust and privacy issues will increase end-user pull. As
interoperable, standards-based and open solutions begin to emerge,
costs and barriers to both deployment and the development of
scalable services will be reduced, stimulating innovation by the
developers’ community.
Over the longer term …
… there will be a data and information-rich IoT ecosystem not unlike
the one that exists today in the wider internet. A full understanding of
the system-level complexity, cost reduction of key components driven
by economy of scale, interoperability, standards and clear business
propositions will drive wide-scale deployment and adoption
of IoT applications and services. Investment in sensors, data
and communications infrastructure will support this expansion.
International governance frameworks will be in place and there
will be a high level of choice and control in how people interact
with and use a range of robust and reliable IoT services.
Complex research challenges need to be addressed to support this
development. The immediate challenges are often perceived as
technological – developing and supporting a global network of
intelligent, interconnecting devices producing data at a scale not
previously reached.
of the Internet of today. The potential
scale of its societal implications is
equally enormous.”
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 1
 But central to the development and success of the IoT is the role of
people. In addition to bringing design and creative perspectives,
people are themselves both sources of data and users of IoT-enabled
applications and services, raising important social, ethical and legal
issues (such as privacy and consent).

For the UK economy to benefit fully from the exciting opportunities

offered by the IoT, a firm understanding of the business and
regulatory issues needs to be developed. In an area where existing
business and regulatory models may be hard to apply, there needs
to be a willingness to learn from other disciplines and to identify
where the value in the IoT lies and to make the case for investment.
The complexity and scale of these challenges and their interlinked
nature formed the rationale for this interdisciplinary effort, involving
a wide community of researchers and practitioners, to create a
roadmap for research.

“Sometimes the sheer difference of

scale at which the IoT operates requires
qualitatively different approaches from
past internet innovations.”

“The IoT holds out the promise of great

opportunities – for the individual and
for the economy as a whole.”

The Internet of Things

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 2

The methodology

The methodology used for the roadmapping centred on a

two-day interdisciplinary workshop bringing together over
100 invited experts from academia and industry. This was
followed by an in-depth investigation of the findings, resulting
in four white papers. These white papers contributed to the
recommendations and research themes set out in this report.

The objective of the collaboration between the Research Councils

and the Technology Strategy Board was to develop an understanding
of the research issues related to realising the full potential of the IoT.

Central to the collaboration was a two-day roadmapping workshop

held in July 2012 in Loughborough. Over 100 invited experts from
academia and industry came together to build an understanding of
future challenges and research opportunities around the IoT. The
experts comprised researchers, industrialists and practitioners from
the diverse fields of arts and humanities, business, social sciences,
pure science, and technology.

The approach was based on exploring issues across disciplines as

well as developing a sound understanding of the challenges within
each discipline.

This was achieved through a format designed to stimulate new

thinking with a series of short thought-provoking sector-based
presentations on ‘What needs to happen for the IoT to become
a serious and valuable reality?’

Photos: ImaginationLancaster
“The workshop was a model of how
people could interact on cutting-edge
Footage of the workshops
research topics.”

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 3

IoT issues were examined from four different perspectives, Breakout groups then considered and prioritised key issues
seeking to understand common as well as distinct challenges. and research questions from the following perspectives:
– science and technology
– culture, creative and design
– economics and business
– social, legal and ethical.
The groups explored specific challenges from their range of
Economics Science
expertise, sectors and disciplines. Various challenges emerged
and business and technology
from this process that the groups could then discuss with other
groups, benefiting from the experience and expertise of those
coming from other disciplines. These formed the basis for the
interdisciplinary work.
Thinking and dialogue across traditional boundaries were
maximised through the use of a modified form of ‘field research’,
where participants were encouraged to extend their own
understanding by mixing and collaborating with other groups
Culture, Social, (not necessarily related to their core areas of interest and expertise).
creative and legal and This enabled questions and challenges identified within each
design ethical areas discipline to be taken to the other three groups.
This process in itself had its own challenges, for example the use
of different languages and terms, and different methodologies
employed within different disciplines and areas of research.
However, all four groups engaged with the challenges identified
within the other groups, resulting in a valuable cross-disciplinary
dialogue that generated a rich body of material.
“I appreciated the overlap of disciplines
Before a final plenary session, all participants returned to their
‘home’ group to share their findings and explore ‘solutions’, built
on a much broader body of knowledge.
Lead academics in each of the four areas produced white papers,
based on the workshop discussions, highlighting strategically
important research areas that would help to shape IoT priorities
over the coming years:
–A Roadmap for Interdisciplinary Research on the Internet of Things:
Technology
– A Roadmap for Interdisciplinary Research on the Internet of Things:
Culture, Creative and Design
– A Roadmap for Interdisciplinary Research on the Internet of Things:
Economics and Business
– A Roadmap for Interdisciplinary Research on the Internet of Things:
Social Sciences.
An expert group worked to study the white papers to develop an
overarching set of recommendations and imperatives as well as
priority research themes, which are presented in this report.
The research challenges summarised in this report are elaborated
on further in the four white papers, which are available at:
tiny.cc/iotresearchculture
tiny.cc/iotresearcheconomics
tiny.cc/iotresearchsocial
tiny.cc/iotresearchtechnology
to stimulate debate, share knowledge,
question our terminology and discover
how similar our areas of concern are.”
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 4
Key recommendations
There are a number of imperatives for funders and the
research community to advance the UK’s position in the IoT:
– D
 evelop a coordinated national research and
innovation programme
– Fund and sustain open experimental research spaces
– Fund the development and deployment of open
experimental IoT platforms
– Fund interdisciplinary research
“The Internet of Things is evolving
Develop a coordinated national research and
innovation programme
The Technology Strategy Board, the Research Councils and other
relevant agencies should convene to take on board the outcomes
and recommendations outlined in this report in order to develop a
concerted action plan for investment in research and innovation in the
IoT. It is essential that all of the priority research areas identified in this
interdisciplinary roadmap form the basis for an ongoing research
programme. An integrated, interdisciplinary approach must be taken.
Furthermore, the nature of the evolution of the IoT will necessitate a
dynamic approach to the detailed research agenda within each
priority area, reflecting the rapid evolution of the IoT landscape,
as set out in the introduction.
rapidly – we need a highly dynamic
approach to research.”
Fund and sustain open experimental research spaces
In order to investigate new usage paradigms resulting from the
IoT, research spaces should be created in which it is possible to
explore and ‘play’. Environments need to be created for agile
co-development and co-evaluation, supported by toolkits and
expertise in technical knowhow, socio-cultural understanding,
marketing and strategy. This activity should be supported by
low-level, rapidly available funding that will foster new ideas
and enable scaling of pilots and demonstrators.
These spaces should involve users, together with researchers,
designers, artists, ethnographers and hardware and software
developers working in an interdisciplinary research environment
that encourages exploration of the interface between disciplines.
Negotiations over the ownership of data, intellectual property,
personalisation and localisation, and the gathering of data from
complex objects that have multiple properties would need to be
supported. Experimentation should be undertaken within a variety
of community settings (for example, schools or with patient support
groups) using different engagement models: brokering discussions
and relationships, facilitating conversations, and holding workshops
or creative labs to promote growth and innovation.
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 5
“There is a pressing need to create an
interdisciplinary research community
focused on the issues which have
been identified in this report.”
“We cannot predict disruption –
we need to facilitate it.”
Fund the development and deployment of open experimental Fund interdisciplinary research
IoT platforms The IoT inherently involves many areas of technology, economic,
The UK can best differentiate itself from the rest of the world by legal, ethical, social, creative and design disciplines. Funders and
pursuing integrated solutions rather than continued development the research community must embrace a programme of research
of individual technologies. In order to explore such solutions, a small that crosses traditional boundaries within and across disciplines.
number of open experimental platforms specifically designed for Significant efforts should be dedicated to ensuring that practitioners
IoT research need to be developed. It is imperative that these from all these disciplines are included in the research agenda.
platforms include not only basic functionalities that are common
to most applications, but also new and evolving functionalities The disruptive nature of the IoT also means that traditional
that can be integrated and tested by the research community. linear methods of scientific and technology research should
be complemented with experimental and field research
IoT platforms should not just be about capability, but should be methodologies that emphasise co-production with users.
deployed in demonstrators to prove value, lower cost or reduce risk.
Such demonstrators must be developed in the context of specific use
cases (such as health, transport, the built environment). They need
to address the problems of scale and integration inherent in the IoT
and enable the study of the interactions between different design
approaches, algorithms, protocols and technologies proposed for
disparate aspects of the IoT.
In conjunction with the experimental research spaces, these
platforms and demonstrators would be invaluable in exploring how
concepts and experiences developed in a small-scale environment
could be scaled up for wider deployment. These platforms should
also be accessible to non-technologists to support the development
of new IoT services and applications.
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 6
Priority research areas

Six themes cutting across the multiple disciplines

addressed in the workshop were identified. Each theme Aligning local,
Ownership national, regional
contains a number of priority areas for research. While Ethical Accountability Regulatory and Digital life
Governance implications and liability standards issues and death
and intellectual and global
the important issues within each priority area will change property rights practices
over time, these will all remain significant areas for and policies
research over the next ten to fifteen years.

Value chains,
How to create and How to
Business Ecosystems their dynamics and
monetise value measure value
consolidation

Impacts on
Understanding
everyday life in
User engagement attitudes, opinions Impacts on
People Education
in design and behaviours working life
the household
and public
towards the IoT
space

Empowering
users and Safety and
Privacy and Reliability and
Trust establishment
data protection
protection
dependability
of trust of the public
mechanisms

Efficient
Scalable
Storage, discovery translation between
Integrity and extensible Variable grade
Data and federation machine- and user-
and quality semantics and security
understandable
ontology
data

Addressability
Self-management,
and seamless Mobility and Energy-efficient
Devices and Networks, devices
networks operation and
reconfiguration,
connectivity
connectivity and repeaters organisation
over internet federation energy harvesting
and healing
Priority areas within six cross-cutting themes protocols

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 7


Ethical Accountability Regulatory and
Governance implications and liability standards issues
Governance
The complex ecology of the IoT includes aspects of governance
that are poorly understood and need to be well researched
over the coming years to inform policy makers and regulators.
The expert group has identified six important priority areas
pertaining to national and international coordination, regulation,
policing and accountability.
G1 Ethical implications
G2 Accountability and liability
G3 Regulatory and standards issues
G4 Digital life and death
G5 Ownership and intellectual property rights
G6 Aligning local, national, regional and global
practices and policies
Ethical implications (G1)
It is an open research question whether privacy, security and specific
values or principles (such as moving control closer to the user) can
be designed into IoT systems and services from the beginning rather
than downstream. Indeed, what will be the norms around the use
of the IoT (which may often generate very sensitive personal
information)? Lessons from social media could potentially inform
the development of appropriate guidelines in the IoT – and whether
they can be voluntary or need to be imposed.
Accountability and liability (G2)
There will inevitably be failures, data breaches and costs
associated with IoT services. There is a need to research and
understand whether the IoT will increase or undermine and
obscure accountability.
Aligning local,
Ownership national, regional
Digital life
and death
and intellectual and global
property rights practices
and policies
Devices that know and learn a great deal about their users potentially
need to be either governed by rules, or allowed to reveal and disclose
everything about their user. An ‘anything goes’ strategy might be
appropriate during early experimentation but less appropriate as
devices become more ubiquitous, with increasingly sophisticated
functionalities and applications.
Control of actuators (which perform actions such as making
adjustments to an operational system) may be just as sensitive as
the question of control of sensors, with tensions between the goals
of security and quality control and the goals of human autonomy
and user-responsive technology. One can envisage, for instance,
that smart city actuators could just as easily become a mechanism
for citizen empowerment, or for infrastructure attacks, or for
citizen disempowerment.
Regulatory and standards issues (G3)
Given the pace of new developments, issues of how to regulate
the vast scale and scope of the IoT are constantly emerging. For
instance, regulatory processes designed to cope with hundreds
or thousands of transactions or service providers might not be
able to cope with billions of connected things.
Challenges in regulation, legislation, compliance and standards of
the IoT will span administrative and jurisdictional borders. Bottlenecks
and barriers to interoperability across the IoT ecosystem (whether
technical or otherwise) need to be investigated, and standards for
interoperability need to be in place. Critical standards issues that
need to be investigated include:
– What should be standardised?
– How should standards be developed and regulated, if at all?
– How open should standards be?
– I s there a need for global and/or regional harmonisation
of standards?
– What are the preferred standards?
Digital life and death (G4)
Research is needed on the life-span of data. We create digital
artefacts, archives and data, but who has the moral, ethical and
legal authority to signify and ensure when data ceases to exist –
the death of data?
Ownership and intellectual property rights (G5)
There is a need for research into issues related to ownership and
usage rights of IoT data. For instance, does IoT data belong to the
device or system collecting the data, or to the thing to which the
data pertains, or indeed to a person or organisation?
Aligning local, national, regional and global practices
and policies (G6)
Policy developments in this area are emerging in the EU and other
regions, but they are poorly understood. What are the policy
dimensions of the IoT, and what should the policy agenda be?
How should the UK’s policy agenda be aligned with developments
in policy and governance at local and global levels?
“With the longer-term development of
international governance frameworks,
there is a need for study of appropriate
models for an IoT that can cope with the
scale and pace of change in this area.”
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 8
 Value chains,
How to create and
Business Ecosystems their dynamics and
monetise value
consolidation
Business
The internet has disrupted traditional value chains and
transformed business models – but it has also helped to build
new markets, out of which have emerged opportunities for
value and growth. The stakeholders involved in today’s
internet have gradually understood and found the correct
incentives for their involvement. Early signs with the IoT
suggest that these incentives are frequently unclear and not
aligned. How will these incentives develop and eventually
manifest themselves? What financial policies and regulations
may be needed to underpin IoT services and transactions?
And, ultimately, how can a financially viable and sustainable
IoT be built?
Four priority research areas underpin the recommendations
around the business theme.
B1 Ecosystems
B2 Value chains, their dynamics and consolidation
B3 How to create and monetise value
B4 How to measure value
How to
measure value
Ecosystems (B1) How to measure value (B4)
When data is made accessible across a potentially vast and How do we enable, measure and demonstrate the value of data
open IoT ecosystem, there is a myriad of opportunities to create and information as it flows through the value chain? This needs to
sustainable economic growth. Challenges arise around ensuring be achieved in real time and in the context of potentially complex
that data and information that lead to the creation of business multi-level service agreements.
opportunities and value can flow through the ecosystem as
it evolves and that new players are stimulated to participate, There is also a need for new data and information transaction
contribute and innovate. models, together with tools for monitoring changing value.
Value chains, their dynamics and consolidation (B2)
Theories, models and simulations of evolving value chains “Data providers from one sector will
within this ecosystem need to be developed, tested and validated.
A long-term goal is to understand trends about how value chains
be asked to store and share their
form and evolve, not only within the IoT ecosystem but also external data with service providers from
to it. For instance, what new organisational partnerships will be
required to support service innovations in the IoT and the business
unrelated sectors. Where is the
models behind them (for example, between insurance companies, incentive for this?”
in-car-navigation software providers and car telematics
systems providers)?
How to create and monetise value (B3)
There is insufficient knowledge of the formal mechanisms that
need to be deployed in the market to effectively unlock the potential
of new business activities across the value chains of the IoT.
A strictly economic approach to value may not be applicable
to the IoT, but the monetisation of value is a shared concern.
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 9
 Impacts on
Understanding
everyday life in
User engagement attitudes, opinions Impacts on
People Education
in design and behaviours working life
the household
and public
towards the IoT
space

People
In addition to bringing design and creative perspectives,
people are themselves both sources of data and users of
IoT-enabled applications and services. In the race to solve
technical challenges, there is also an imperative to research
and understand how users will interact with objects and data
and the developing role of people as participants in and users
of the emerging IoT ecosystem.
Five underlying priority areas were identified.
P1 Education
P2 User engagement in design
P3 Understanding attitudes, opinions and
behaviours towards the IoT
P4 Impacts on working life
P5 Impacts on everyday life in the household
and public space
“With the introduction of self-monitoring
devices in patient healthcare, institutions
such as the NHS will need to respond
organisationally in order to deliver
different types of services. It requires
an integrated approach between
Education (P1)
There is a vital need to foster collaboration between individuals,
organisations and businesses that will use the IoT, to help them
understand the value and specific aspects of IoT applications
and services. Many inherent assumptions associated with the IoT
(particularly in relation to privacy and data protection issues) are
potentially distinctive from those of the internet and will require a
reshaping of expectations among users. Involving businesses
and people in pilots and demonstrator projects will increase
understanding and ultimately drive adoption.
At a broader level, as new systems for collecting and using
data and IoT services are introduced, it will be important to
consider how these systems align with prevailing cultural or
organisational practices. Is there a need to educate towards
new practices?
User engagement in design (P2)
There is a need to understand how researchers, developers and
end users can become involved in co-designing IoT services,
especially with respect to information interfaces and seamless
services. ‘Living labs’ could be instrumental in achieving this goal.
Generating narratives and scenarios for communication, discourse
and user engagement would enrich this activity.
People will be both producers of information in, and users of, the IoT.
This interplay, together with the usage contexts, should be better
understood, including in relation to social and cultural norms, for IoT
Understanding attitudes, opinions and behaviour towards
the IoT (P3)
To drive adoption, it will be necessary and critical to research and
understand public attitudes to specific classes of IoT applications
and services, and to identify where concerns may not be aligned
with benefits or behaviours. For example:
–S  hould users be offered choice in their use of and involvement
in IoT applications and services?
– Will there be an increase or decrease in choice?
– Who controls the use of data or systems?
– What are the demographics of the early adopters willing to trial
new applications and services?
Impacts on working life (P4)
The IoT will have an impact on working life, changing business
processes and the way in which we interact as employees and
workers. Research is needed on how IoT products and services
can enhance productivity and improve work–life balance.
Impacts on everyday life in the household and public space (P5)
IoT applications and services will reconfigure how we do things in
households and public space. Meanwhile, threats to privacy and
data protection must be considered to prevent the unintentional
construction of a surveillance society. Who will control what
functions? How will the so-called ‘politics of the remote control’
extend to control of the household?

different stakeholders rather than a products and services to be widely adopted.

bolt-on approach.”

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 10

 Empowering
users and Safety and
Privacy and Reliability and
Trust establishment
data protection
protection
dependability
of trust of the public
mechanisms

Trust
Trust is a vital component for people and businesses to adopt
IoT applications and services. Very little is understood about
how trust will manifest itself in different contexts of use
and application. For instance, ‘unconscious exposure’ to
applications and services has implications in terms of consent
and trust that are more central to the IoT than with many internet
applications that are more consciously used by people. There is
thus a need for substantial research into the technical, social,
legal and ethical issues around developing a trusted IoT.
Four priority areas were identified.
T1 Empowering users and establishment of trust mechanisms
T2 Privacy and data protection
T3 Safety and protection of the public
T4 Reliability and dependability
Empowering users and establishment of trust mechanisms (T1) Reliability and dependability (T4)
All the various actors involved with the IoT are likely to err on the To ensure the viability and relevance of IoT applications and services,
side of getting and harvesting more information than they need. people must view IoT data and information as reliable. Current
This was a classic issue with management information systems mapping examples show how easily trust can be undermined
in the earliest decades of data processing, and the IoT is now by inaccurate data on which people depend. There is a need for
facing the same problem. systems to be robust, dependable and secure, and considerable
research is needed in this space.
In this context, there is a need to understand how users can make
informed decisions to judge the trustworthiness of information.
In thinking about metrics of trust, research into objective measures “The IoT carries with it an inherent
and their semantic representations across different ecosystems
and governance approaches is needed. assumption that information will need
to be shared across things, applications
Liability and ownership, particularly when things go wrong
in safety-critical systems, is another important aspect of trust. and possibly sectors in order to be most
When data is constantly recombined and reused in new (and
originally unintended) ways, who owns and who is liable for what?
useful, such as in using energy meter
readings to alert a family about the vitality
Privacy and data protection (T2)
Much of the IoT data can, in one way or another, be associated with
of an elderly parent living alone. This
individuals. Attitudes and approaches to ‘giving away’ personal data-sharing assumption might lead
information vary widely. There is a need to carry out research both
into attitudes to privacy in an IoT context and into technologies,
to the IoT having even more dramatic
solutions and methodologies to deliver peace of mind for users impacts on privacy and data protection
and businesses.
than other information and
Safety and protection of the public (T3) communication technologies.”
The IoT has great potential to enhance safety and protect the
public, and its role needs to be better understood. An important
aspect needing research relates to the fact that data collection
may occur unknown to the individuals, and safety and protection
applications may infringe personal rights. Patient monitoring is one
of the best-known applications where this tension manifests itself.

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 11

 Efficient
Scalable
Storage, discovery translation between
Integrity and extensible Variable grade
Data and federation machine- and user-
and quality semantics and security
understandable
ontology
data

Data
Today’s IoT applications tend to be highly vertically integrated
– with often just one provider engineering the entire stack. The
vision for how the IoT is going to develop is one of connection
and interaction between billions of objects and devices,
supporting multiple vendors and emergent services and
applications centred around the flow of IoT data and information.
Whilst a large body of knowledge exists, many of the issues to
deliver this vision are poorly understood.
Five priority areas relating to data have been identified.
D1 Storage, discovery and federation
D2 Efficient translation between machine- and user-
understandable data
D3 Integrity and quality
D4 Scalable and extensible semantics and ontology
D5 Variable grade security
Storage, discovery and federation (D1)
Today, most IoT applications are hard-wired to particular, often
proprietary, mechanisms for publishing and searching datasets
or datastreams (for example, the Common Open Service Market
project). In the future, there will be a diverse array of IoT data sources,
which could be highly distributed, heterogeneous and unreliable.
New generic and scalable search-and-discovery mechanisms
specific to IoT need to be researched and tested in complex,
real-life deployments.
Efficient translation between machine- and
user-understandable data (D2)
The IoT will be generating huge quantities of data. The value of
this data depends on what is captured, where it is stored and how
it is accessed. While much technology already exists to deal with
large volumes of data, specific IoT research into technologies
and methodologies is needed to make this data tangible,
visible and understandable, in order to engender trust and
drive usage.
Scalable and extensible semantics and ontology (D4)
Currently, within many closed IoT implementations, the actual
meaning of the data is application/domain specific. But research
and experimentation is needed for an open IoT ecosystem, where
different parts of the system designed by many different parties
need a common interpretation of the data being exchanged.
Semantic interoperability is needed to resolve differences in
real time on an ongoing basis and to ensure that services are
extensible and scalable.
Variable grade security (D5)
As well as being usable, data must be secure, and end-to-end
security and privacy protection needs to be tuned to specific
contexts, user experience, preferences and cost. For instance,
the security context for a pacemaker will have several descriptor
fields that will be different to those of a hallway thermometer.
There needs to be research and development in approaches
that deal with these specific situations in an IoT context.

Integrity and quality (D3)

A multitude of parties will be involved in the IoT, spread out
“We see the challenge and
physically and using different media, gateways and links. In such opportunity to undertake far more
a variable environment, it is important to anticipate inaccuracy,
incompleteness and flaws in the data. There is thus a challenge
work on the translation, visualisation
to define methods and standards for testing and declaring and access to data in order to make
data quality. Overall, how can better methods and solutions for
extracting high-confidence knowledge from multiple, distributed,
data manifest, reduce its obfuscation
low-quality IoT data sources (such as sensors monitoring water and improve trust.”
pollution) be developed?

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 12

 Addressability
Self-management,
and seamless Mobility and Energy-efficient
Devices and Networks, devices
networks operation and
reconfiguration,
connectivity
connectivity and repeaters organisation
over internet federation energy harvesting
and healing
protocols

Devices and connectivity

Objects can be equipped with intelligence and connectivity;
in the future, we will see the emergence of extensive
self-managed networks of IoT devices with flexibility,
self-management, scalability, high capacity, low energy
consumption and low cost of deployment and maintainability.
The technological challenges involved in realising such an
infrastructure are substantial.
The research challenges identified comprise five priority areas.
C1 Addressability and seamless connectivity over
internet protocols
C2 Networks, devices and repeaters
C3 Mobility and networks federation
C4 Energy-efficient operation and energy harvesting
C5 Self-management, reconfiguration, organisation
and healing
Addressability and seamless connectivity over
internet protocols (C1)
“The IoT is regarded as a network
There is a need to uncouple addressing and identification to of networks. Important enablers are
facilitate mobility and generality of applications. A more dynamic,
lightweight and less fragmented approach to naming objects and
RFID for identification of things,
mapping them to their locations is required. Various approaches sensors for sensing physical changes
have been proposed but research and testing at scale is needed,
together with renewed standardisation and interoperability efforts.
around things and collecting data and
wireless short links and communication
Networks, devices and repeaters (C2)
There is a need to research effective solutions and develop
networks for connecting things.
standards for IoT device and gateway management (‘care and The infrastructure is an integration
feeding’). This would make it possible for third-party IoT service
providers to install, upgrade and configure devices as well as of several networks.”
maintain them. Such solutions will have to cope with devices
with widely different capabilities. For instance, most sensors
do not have a keyboard or a screen for a user to enter a security
key. In such cases, devices should automatically and securely
pair themselves with each other without a central controller or
intervention by a person. There is a need to research such
self-configuration and security protocols.

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 13

Mobility and networks federation (C3)
Research is needed to handle islands of wireless sensor/actuator
networks (WS/ANs), which may not be fixed in a specific
geographical location. Islands could move and change their
locations and become part of or merge, physically or virtually,
with other islands to form larger WS/ANs.
Energy-efficient operation and energy harvesting (C4)
The range of feasible IoT applications becomes much wider as the
devices that provide them use less energy. Furthermore, low energy
has distinct environmental benefits: the energy consumption of vast
numbers of devices communicating with cloud-based services could
have a substantial environmental cost. There is therefore a need to
research into devices, systems and networks for minimum energy
consumption, particularly with respect to radio frequency design
and signal processing.
Design of devices to harvest energy will also be important for specific
applications (e.g. exploiting thermoelectric effects or body motion for
body-mounted devices). The ultimate aim would be to make devices
self-powered.
Self-management, reconfiguration, organisation
and healing (C5)
Research must be carried out in realistic deployment scenarios on
IoT applications and systems that are reliable, easy to deploy and
use, self-organising, and able to operate in any circumstances,
including in disasters or emergencies. They will need to be adaptable
and responsive to different modes of operation and communication.
Another aspect inherent with tightly coupled systems that remove
human intervention is an increased risk of vulnerability associated
with system crashes or cyber-attacks, which could have serious
business or safety impacts. Loosely coupled systems, such as the
internet, might be more flexible and more capable of adapting to
unexpected changes. The research community needs to provide
novel and robust solutions and test them at scale.
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 14
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the expert group –
Professors Hamid Aghvami, Rachel Cooper,
William Dutton, Dr Colin Upstill, Nigel Rix and
Dr Maurizio Pilu – for their regular insights to
shape and steer the work and for Professors
Hamid Aghvami, Rachel Cooper, William
Dutton and Dr Colin Upstill as lead authors
of the four white papers.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of
all those who contributed to the workshop
in Loughborough in July 2012 (listed below)
and of the IoT Special Interest Group for
their work in organising the workshop and
preparing this report, especially Graham
Hitchen, David Dowe and Nigel Rix.
Last, but not least, I would also like to
thank the sponsors and partners who were
involved in the development of the project
and provided invaluable guidance along the
way – namely Dr Maurizio Pilu, TSB; Dr Carol
McAnally and Dr John Baird, RCUK’s Digital
Economy Programme and EPSRC; Andy
Gibbs and Rachel Tyrrell, ESRC; Heather
Williams and Susan Amor, AHRC.
Professor Rahim Tafazolli
Director of the Centre for Communication
Systems Research, University of Surrey
Contributors to the Loughborough workshop 11–12 July 2012
This is a list of all participants in the workshop, who
contributed to the white papers highlighted above.
This report is a summation of those reports, and
does not necessarily represent the views of those
listed here.
Dr Carl Adams Principal Lecturer,
University of Portsmouth
Professor Director Telecomms,
Hamid Aghvami Kings College, London
Professor Atta Badii Research Centre Director,
University of Reading
Dr John Baird Lead for RCUK Digital
Economy Theme, EPSRC
Howard Baker Editor, BBC
Andy Barker Head of Smart Grids,
Dan & Adam Ltd
Dr Payam Barnagh Lecturer in IoT and Ontology,
CCSR/University of Surrey
Pilgrim Beart Director, AlertMe.com Ltd
Durrell Bishop Designer, Luckybite
Liam Blackwell Deputy Team Head, EPSRC
Dr Eliane Bodanese Lecturer, Queen Mary,
University of London
Roberto Bottazzi Research Co-ordinator,
Architecture, Royal College
of Art
Liz Brandt CEO, ctrl-shift
Peter Brook Director,
Hearts Heads Limited
Philip Brook Director,
Hearts Heads Limited
Dr Peter Bull Research Associate,
Loughborough University
Professor Alister Burr Professor of
Communications,
University of York
Dr Licia Capra Senior Lecturer,
University College London
Natasha Carolan PhD/Production,
HighWire/Makielab
Dave Carter Head of Manchester
Digital Development
Agency, Manchester
City Council
Dr Ruzanna Lecturer,
Chitchyan University of Leicester
Marina Ciaraldi Sheffield University
Joshua Ciioer Director, Hildebrand
Dr Piotr Cofta CTO, Trusted
Renewables Ltd
Professor Chair, Lancaster Institute
Rachel Cooper for the Contemporary Arts
Annette Copper KTP Manager,
Birmingham City University
Dr Paul Coulton Senior Lecturer,
Lancaster University
Raghu Das CEO, IDTechEx
Matt Davenport REACT Producer,
Watershed
Lipika Deka Researcher, Indian Institute Melissa Jenkins Consultant, Temeletry Ltd
of Technology, Guwahati
Professor Professor of Internet
William Dutton Studies, Oxford Internet
Institute, University of
Oxford and Balliol College
Dr David Evans Lecturer, University of Derby
Dr Sue Fenley Research Leader,
Royal College of Art
Professor Professor of Innovation
James Fleck Dynamics, Open University
Dr Richard Foggie Knowledge Exchange
Manager, ESP KTN
Dr Robert Foster Research Programme
Manager and Research
Assistant, Queen Mary,
University of London
Professor Technical Director, Smart
Anthony Furness Identification Association
Matt Gallop  Assistant Producer,
BBC Learning
Ian Graham Senior Lecturer,
Edinburgh University
Fotis Gramm Lecturer,
Westminster University
Paul Green Technology and Marketing
Director, Arkessa
Dr Lin Guan Senior Lecturer,
Loughborough University
Professor Ian Gwilt Professor of Design and
Visual Communication,
Sheffield Hallam University
Graham Hitchen Project Co-ordinator,
Technology Strategy Board
Tony Holt Renewable Energies
Principal, Dan & Adam Ltd
Dr Marina Jirotka Reader, University of Oxford
Dr Rachel Jones Manager, Instrata
Dr Costis Kompis Managing Partner,
Vodera Ltd
Agnes Kupai Contract IT Manager,
BASF Metals Recycling Ltd
Dr Pip Laurenson Head of Collection Care
Research, Tate
Helen Le Voi Service Design Lead,
FJORD
Dr Kerstin Research Associate,
Leder Mackley LEEDR, Loughborough
University
A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 15
Professor Ian Leslie Professor of Computer Malcolm Payne VP Business Development, Professor Professor and Associate Heather Williams Knowledge Exchange
Science, University Trusted Renewables Ltd George Spanoudakis Dean for Research, Relationship Manager,
of Cambridge Dr Amyas Phillips Research Entrepreneur, City University London AHRC
Alison Lewis Publications Marketing ARM Ltd Dr Chris Speed Reader, Dr Amanda Windle DigiLab Fellow/Director,
Manager, IDTechEx Professor Professor of Edinburgh College of Art University of the Arts, Lon-
Dr Jonathan Loo Reader in Communication Mike Phillips Interdisciplinary Arts, Professor Professor, SPRU, don
and Networking, i-DAT, Plymouth University Ed Steinmueller University of Sussex Dr Dave Wisely Head of Mobility
Middlesex University Dr Maurizio Pilu Lead Technologist, John Stenlake CTO, Living PlanIT Research, BT
Dr Martin Maguire Research Fellow, Technology Strategy Board Professor Director of the Centre for Professor Professor of Digital
Loughborough University David Pitcher UK Manager, Power Rahim Tafazolli Communication Systems Gillian Youngs Economy, School of
Design School Plus Communications Research, University of Surrey Art, Design and Media,
Colin Mallett CEO, Professor Director, Paul Tanner  Principal Consultant, University of Brighton
Trusted Renewables Ltd Keith Popplewell Future Manufacturing Virtual Technologies Muhammad Yousuf CEO, Dan & Adam Ltd
Nigel Matthews Director of Business Applied Research Ce, Dr Claire Thorne Digital City Exchange –
Development, Coventry University Programme Coordinator,
PFI Knowledge Solutions Alison Prendivelle Deputy Director, London Digital City Exchange,
Dr Qinggang Meng Senior Lecturer, College of Communication Imperial College London
Loughborough University, Simon Reed Head of Technical Services Dr James Thorpe CTO, Experior Micro
School of Business and Group, Transport for London Technologies Ltd
Economics Chris Reeves Collaborative R&D, Benjamin Tomlinson Creative Director, Poke
Jonnet Middleton Artist, Highwire, MIRA Ltd Orestis Tsinalis Research Assistant,
Lancaster University Stuart Revell Domain Expert, ICT KTN Imperial College London
Bryan Mitchell Database Administrator, Professor Professor of Computing, Gareth Tyler Consultant, IBI Group
UWE Tom Rodden Nottingham University Rachel Tyrrell Deputy Team Head,
Dr Miranda Mowbray Senior Research Engineer, Professor Director, Russell Studio Health and Human
HP Labs Dale Russell Visiting Professor, Behaviour, ESRC
Dr Irina Neaga Researcher, Loughborough Innovation Design Dr Colin Upstill Director, University
University, School of Engineering, of Southampton
Business and Economics Royal College of Art IT Innovation Centre
Professor Irene Ng Professor of Marketing & Dr Zoheir Sabeur Manager, University Hugo Vincent Senior Research
Service Systems, WMG, of Southampton Engineer, IoT, ARM Ltd
University of Warwick IT Innovation Centre Peter Ward PhD student, WMG,
Sinead Ouillon Business Development Dina Shah Business Development University of Warwick
Manager, Coventry Manager, Health Design Fiddian Warman Director, Soda Ltd
University and Technology Institute Roger Whitham Visualiser, Lancaster
Ian Owen Consultant, IBI Group Dr Monika Solanki Research Fellow, University
Stephen Pattenden Consultant, Telemetry Birmingham City University Dave Whydall Renewable Energies
Associates Limited Alastair Somerville Director, Acuity Design Principal, Dan & Adam Ltd

A roadmap for interdisciplinary research on the Internet of Things 16